MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2090848201 · doi:10.1159/000113638

The Development of Sensorimotor Reflexes in the Brazilian Opossum Monodelphis domestics

2008· article· en· W2090848201 on OpenAlexaff
G. Cassidy, D. Boudrias, Jean‐François Pflieger, T. Cabana

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain Behavior and Evolution · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPrimate Behavior and Ecology
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOpossumMonodelphis domesticaAnatomyHindlimbBiologyForelimbReflexNeuroscienceMarsupialSpinal cordTrunk

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The development of a number of sensorimotor reflexes was studied in the Brazilian opossum Monodelphis domestica. At birth, an opossum's forelimbs execute rhythmic, alternate movements which resemble swimming, whereas the hindlimbs are little more than embryonic buds that do not move independent of the trunk. It is possible, therefore, to witness the entire development of hindlimb motility, the advent of coordination between forelimbs and hindlimbs, and the development of ambulation. The following sequence in the appearance and maturation of the reflexes was observed: rooting, an innate reflex in mammals which disappears over time; withdrawal of the forelimbs followed by withdrawal of the hindlimbs; crossed extension of the forelimbs and then of the hindlimbs; grasp, the forelimbs preceding the hindlimbs; body righting on a surface; forward hopping of the forelimbs followed by the hindlimbs; lateral and medial hopping of the forelimbs, then the hindlimbs; chin tactile placing; body righting in the air; and, finally, visual placing. Limb tactile placing is not significantly expressed, even in the adult. This behavioral sequence generally matches the sequence of somatic (trunk, limbs, head) and neural (spinal cord and brain) structures involved in the control of these behaviors.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.297 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations38
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrain Behavior and EvolutionSame topicPrimate Behavior and EcologyFrench-language works237,207